GREGORY EVERETT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Defendant's conviction for lewd and lascivious acts affirmed where trial court properly allowed cross-examination about polygraph examination because defendant opened the door during his case-in-chief and results were never mentioned.
A trial court does not commit reversible error by allowing cross-examination about a polygraph examination when the defendant opened the door to such questioning during his case-in-chief and the results were never disclosed.
[1] A defendant who mentions a polygraph examination during his case-in-chief opens the door to cross-examination about the examination, and such cross-examination does not r…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGregory Everett was convicted of lewd and lascivious acts and sentenced to life imprisonment. During trial, the prosecution cross-examined Everett abo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Polygraph Examination Admissibility cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Gregory Everett appeals from his judgment and life sentence for lewd and lascivious acts. He argues that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the prosecution to cross-examine him about taking a polygraph examination. Although the mention of a polygraph examination may in some cases induce a mistrial or require a new trial, see Olivera v. State, 813 So. 2d 996, 997-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), reversal is not required in this case be- cause Everett opened the door to questioning about the polygraph examination during his case-in-chief. See La Rocca v. State, 401 So. 2d 866, 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (holding that the mention of a polygraph examination does not compel reversal where the evidence was introduced by the defendant). In addition, the results of the examination were never mentioned. Cf. McFadden v. State, 540 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (stating that the mention of the results of a polygraph examination requires a mistrial). Finally, the trial court cured any possible error by giving a curative instruction to the jury explaining that the results of a polygraph examination are inadmissible.
We find no merit to Everett’s additional points on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Everett’s judgment and sentence.
Affirmed.
CANADY, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- la Rocca v. State, 401 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- McFADDEN v. State, 540 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Olivera v. State, 813 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)